Consultancy in ‘failing schools’: Emerging issues

Abstract

External consultancy in schools by those who do not belong to the teaching staff has always been an important factor in school development. Such consulting goes hand in hand with the idea that internal school development processes and their results can be influenced positively by external experts. This is even more so for failing schools – that is, those that are revealed to have serious quality deficiencies by the school inspection. (The term failing schools is used in this article as shorthand; the actual terminology, and the underlying thinking, varies between education systems.) This article considers how school development consultancy is exercised by external experts in schools that have been classified as failing. It draws on empirical findings in part from a research project with schools found to have serious deficiencies in the first round of school inspections in the German federal state of Lower Saxony. Our research reveals that the framework conditions under which the outcomes of the inspections are processed at failing schools (in particular, the follow-up inspection) influence the activities in the school in such a way that a specific type of consultancy and/or a specific procedure by the advisers becomes attractive for the schools. This sometimes works against a closer examination of contents, strategies and instruments in school development – although the consultancy contracts advise this. This article, therefore, deals with how external consultancy for school development would have to be designed conceptually in order to effectively support the development activities at failing schools.

Keywords

Case studies external consultancy failing schools school inspection

Introduction

External consultancy at schools by people, who do not belong to the teaching staff, has always been an important aspect in school development. This is bound up with the notion that how internal school development processes are designed, as well as their outcomes, can be influenced positively through external intervention and/or support (e.g. Dalin, Rolff, & Buchen, 1995).

This is even more the case for schools shown by school inspections to have serious quality deficiencies. These schools – referred to in the international context as failing (Quesel, Husfeldt, Landwehr, & Steiner, 2013) – can be seen as a special case. On one hand, the discussion of inspection outcomes that is demanded by both education policy and education authorities is carried out under tougher conditions than usual. Even without any feared sanctions, there is, thus, pressure on such schools to react to the inspection results because a follow-up inspection occurs not long after the initial one. On the other hand, these schools, in particular, often do not possess the necessary skills, structures and resources to improve school development activities significantly (Dedering, Katenbrink, Schaffer, & Wischer, 2016).

This is where our article comes in: we look first at how external school development consultancy is carried out at failing schools and in doing so draw on the few available empirical findings. We look in more detail at one research project¹ that was carried out in regular schools which inspections in the German federal state of Lower Saxony revealed as having serious deficiencies.

Subsequently, we consider how external consultancy for school development should be designed so as to effectively support failing schools. We provide recommendations which are also influenced by some central empirical findings concerning consultancy for school development in general.

In the section that follows, we begin by explaining the terms failing schools, as well as external consultancy for school development and the thinking behind these terms. (The term failing schools is used generically in this article, although the specific terminology used, and the underlying thinking, varies between education systems.) We then present the current state of research on school development consultancy at failing schools before introducing the findings from the aforementioned research project. Finally, we provide some thoughts about what school development consultancy at failing schools could look like. The article ends with some information about current developments in school inspection in Germany.

Explaining the central terms

Failing schools

The term failing school can be understood as generic, covering a wide variety of concepts used in the literature to indicate schools in difficult or problematic positions, for example, struggling, low-achieving, sinking schools and those causing concern (Altrichter & Moosbrugger, 2011).

In the discourse, they are defined, on one hand, as ‘ineffective schools’, that is, as schools in which pupils do not have the learning experiences or attain the learning results that one would expect based on their potential. On the other hand, they are recorded as ‘schools not capable of development’, that is, as schools that do not have the internal capabilities to develop their teaching practices that would allow them to take productive action based on the fact that their learning results are below expectations (Altrichter, Gussner, & Maderthaner, 2008; Altrichter & Moosbrugger, 2011; Holtappels, Webs, Kamarianakis, & Ackeren, 2017).

In the Anglo-American and Scandinavian worlds, the focus is on criteria of school quality output. The performance of pupils is thus the reference point for evaluation. Schools that have a socio-economically, marginalized and stigmatized catchment area are found disproportionately often among the failing schools (Hargreaves, 2010). School failure, which has been established as part of the external evaluation procedures, indicates that the schools are generally in a difficult or problematic position and also reveal deficiencies in areas that are not part of quality evaluation. Altrichter and Moosbrugger (2011) collect empirical evidence on schools in difficult or problematic positions and systematically distinguish between characteristics (and their manifestations) at the pupil level (e.g. an elevated level of disciplinary problems), at the class level (e.g. acceptance of a low level of performance) and at the school level (e.g. low ability and readiness to develop, and weak leadership and management) (see also Mahler, 2015). Manifestations of these indicators mean that the schools in question lack the ability to manage themselves and that there is an impoverishment of learning culture among both pupils and teachers (Hopkins, Harris, & Jackson, 2010).

In the German-speaking world, however, the focus is on the school quality process criteria. Aspects of teaching and learning, of school management, of school environment and so on are reference points (Mahler, 2015). Performance indicators are not considered, and accordingly, the relation between evaluation results and the social context of schools is rather weak. That is why failing schools often also include those that are located in socially privileged catchment areas. Moreover, schools with pupils performing well can also fail concerning the process criteria for school quality and become failing schools. When exactly schools can be deemed not to have fulfilled these criteria thus needs to be determined individually as part of standard-setting. This specific issue must be considered when the results of the empirical survey presented in this article and the recommendations for what form external advice might take are assessed for failing schools.

In Germany, failing schools have currently been identified in four federal states² during the course of school inspections. These are schools that fail to meet previously formulated minimum standards for school quality and have been labelled correspondingly. In two other federal states, as part of an extensive reform of the process, the classification failing schools following completion of the first (Lower Saxony) or second (Hesse) comprehensive round of school inspections has been abolished.

Failing schools must agree to take part in a follow-up evaluation after the specified period of time. In this context, they are assigned with preparing special support measures with different degrees of obligation, mostly after agreed goals have been reached between the school and the responsible school supervisory authority. If the follow-up evaluation has a positive outcome, the schools are then declared to be so-called turnaround schools (Mahler, 2015). There are no official statements available concerning what happens if the outcome is negative.

External school development consultancy

Consultancy is a collective term that can refer to many forms of assistance. It can be understood as a complex interpersonal interaction that is limited in time and content and which only constitutes consultancy through a commonly accepted definition (Müller, Nagel, & Zirkler, 2006).

In the field of school development, professional forms of consultancy are characterized by theory-led, verifiable and transparent procedures and the corresponding methods (Straumann, 2001). The voluntary nature of consultancy on the part of both school and adviser, the fact that the consultants are independent of the goals and ideas of the adviser, and the confidential nature of all information forming the consultancy process have proved to be typical features (e.g. Reichel & Rabenstein, 2001; Schlegel, 2000). To the extent that it is conducted by people who do not belong to the teaching staff of the school, consultancy for school development is considered external.

In the literature, consultancy is seen as an independent form of intervention and/or service alongside supervision, training, guidance and therapy (Wimmer, 2004). On the contrary, it is also defined as a parent category for various forms of support, such as coaching, supervision and further training, as well as the moderation of problem analysis and help in setting up programmes of action (Rolff, Buhren, Lindau-Bank, & Müller, 2011). This article pursues the latter approach.

The external consultancy process involves taking a look at the entire school. This does not rule out individuals or groups forming the focus, but the outcomes of the process are integrated into the change programme for the organization. The consultancy is therefore organizational and serves to improve the pedagogical work at the school.

Consultancy on school development includes a broad spectrum of issues, including (1) teaching in class, conveying the school curriculum; (2) the organizational tasks of school management and steering groups; and (3) specific problems and developments (e.g. developing a plan for grade 5–10 students with poor reading and writing skills). Issues can be attributed to the areas ‘teaching development’, ‘organizational development’ and ‘personnel development’ (Dedering, Goecke, & Rauh, 2015).

Referring back to Schein (1969), the consultancy literature to the present day regards as fundamental a differentiation between expert or professional consultancy, on one hand, and process consultation, on the other. Whereas, in the case of expert and professional consultancy, the adviser offers specific solutions to current problems, process consultancy is all about improving the problem-solving skills of those seeking advice. To put it differently, in the case of expert or professional consultancy, the person seeking advice knows what the problem is and the adviser should therefore contribute to finding solutions. In process consultancy, the adviser creates working situations that enable the person seeking advice to detect the problem himself or herself and to find his or her own remedies. In more recent debate, however, the provision of consultancy is often placed on a continuum on which ‘pure’ process consultancy and ‘pure’ expert consultancy each represent ideal endpoints (Wimmer, 2004).

Current state of research

External advice is widespread in schools. How it is actually carried out and how effective it is have certainly been researched internationally and in German-speaking countries (Dedering et al., 2015). Yet, there are hardly any empirical findings on the specific case of external advice for failing schools. This is mentioned in the literature (Finnigan, Bitter, & O’Day, 2009; Mahler, 2015) and is also evident from our own extensive research. The following are our findings.

In the Anglo-American regions, the findings on the utilization of consultancy services show that many schools reject external consultancy or even actively rail against it (Nicolaidou & Ainscow, 2005). Those schools that do accept external advisers tend to choose advisers with whom they already have some kind of relationship, rather than with a view to the specific needs of the school, and consequently, the advice does not always meet the school’s needs. Hargreaves (2010) found that dependencies can emerge, which endanger a sustainable and long-lasting development.

With respect to the effectiveness of consultancy services, the available studies show that the influence of external advisers tends to be quite low (e.g. Berman & McLaughlin, 1978; McLaughlin, 1987). Finnigan et al. (2009) found that consultancy is seldom carried out in a targeted, coherent or intensive manner so that the schools therefore derive little benefit. All in all, not only the type of consultancy and the goals targeted through the consultancy process but also its intensity and strategic approach (or the lack of them) influence the success of the consultancy process (for more details, Chimerine, Haslam, & Laguarda, 1994; David, Kannapel, & McDiarmid, 2000; Fullan, 1991; Supovitz & Turner, 2000; in summary, Finnigan et al., 2009).

Among German-speaking regions, an investigation into school inspection as it operates in Lower Saxony showed that 90 percent of the failing schools use external consulting (Schwank & Sommer, 2013). In the consulting and support system, which is the responsibility of the school authorities in Germany, consultants are mainly school development advisers and teaching quality advisers, as well as various experts and psychologists. The authority’s commitment is very high, both in terms of the number of advisers deployed and the amount of time expended (Sommer, Stöhr, & Thomas, 2010). In total, 82 percent of principals had a very high appreciation of them, and almost as many principals (81%) considered the advisers a great help (Niedersächsisches Landesinstitut für schulische Qualitätsentwicklung (NLQ), 2012).

Research question and methodology

As mentioned at the start, the study looked at schools that had been classified as ‘schools with considerable deficiencies’ in the first round of inspections (2005–2012). In these schools, either half of 16 quality aspects examined were deemed ‘weak’ or ‘more weak than strong’ and/or serious deficiencies were detected in three out of four lesson observation criteria³ (Niedersächsische Schulinspektion, 2010). On the whole, in the first round of school inspections, approximately 7 percent of general schools were classified as such (NLQ, 2012).

The research project examined how the schools deal with their inspection evaluations and which processes were launched in which areas as a result. In order to reconstruct these processes, case studies were carried out at eight schools in order to analyse the handling and development process that the schools went through after receiving their inspection results (Dedering et al., 2016).

Selection of cases

Out of the 203 Lower Saxony schools that had been identified as having ‘considerable deficiencies’ and that already had a follow-up inspection, 15 schools were willing to take part in our investigation. Of these, eight schools were selected to provide a range of types of school (Grundschule–Hauptschule–Realschule–Gymnasium),⁴ regional locations (rural area–small town–large city) and evaluation results:

● eight of the quality aspects evaluated as ‘weak’ and/or ‘more weak than strong’,

● three out of four ‘teaching and learning’ criteria judged ‘weak’ and/or ‘more weak than strong’,

● negative judgements in both areas. (Katenbrink & Schaffer, 2016)

Implementation of the case studies

Group discussions

The school inspection procedure is aimed at the school as an organization. The quality of the school as a whole is evaluated, and the expectation is that school management and staff deal with the receipt and handling of the inspection results themselves. In this context, the handling and development processes should be understood as collective processes or practices.

When it comes to the manner in which members of the organization deal with the results, the focus is – according to Bohnsack (2010) – on communication in the organization, as well as collectively shared orientation, which can best be captured in group discussions among teachers.

For this reason, the research project at the aforementioned schools entailed group discussions with teachers, with the involvement of school management, in the first 6 months of 2014. The actors within the school were asked for their ‘story’ of the handling and development processes, through open and joint reminiscing about how it affected the staff to find out that the school had been deemed as having significant deficits and that a follow-up inspection was planned and about what happened afterwards. The interviewers’ activities were limited to asking the group how the process proceeded and, when necessary, to ask for clarification. For each school, five to nine teachers (of which at least one was a member of school management) took part in the group discussions, which ran for 90–135 minutes and were transcribed verbatim. They were evaluated in accordance with the documentary method (Bohnsack, 2010).

In recording the collective handling of inspection results, the research project took a reconstructive approach, marked by a switch in the analysis from ‘what’ to ‘how’ (Asbrand, 2011; Bohnsack, 2010). This approach is currently gaining popularity in Germany, although it is largely unknown internationally. Two phases of interpretation characterize reconstructive work: formulating and reflective interpretation, which were also implemented in the survey described here. To begin with, the formulating interpretation mapped the content of the discussion in a manner that was close to the intrinsic semantic content. An analysis was conducted with regard to ‘what’ – that is, which topics the teachers talked about regarding the school inspection and the development processes that arose as a result. The focus was on the knowledge base that those surveyed could access reflexively and which they made explicit in their communication (Asbrand, 2011). Formal references that participants made to one another were indicated here, as were certain topics and positions that arose. The reflective interpretation of the content expressed was linked with the basic pattern of statements within the overall discussion. At this level, the meaning behind the document, the true collective frame of orientation, was reconstructed. A determination was made as to how the teachers negotiate and unlock the topics together and to what this manner of discourse was referring. The ‘how’ entailed implicit knowledge – implicit orientations determined by thought and usable knowledge and that have been adopted in subjunctive experiential spaces – such as school as an organization – and are thus shared by everyone who has joint experiences (Asbrand, 2011). In the sequence analyses, thematically corresponding text sections were identified and compared with one another. In this process, points in the discussion that stood out as particularly significant, the so-called focusing metaphors, were elaborated as content-related and interactively compact discussion sequences. What was important here was to parenthesize the value character; an evaluation of what was stated in the group discussion did not take place. As such, we did not evaluate whether statements are correct – for example, those that the inspectors would have considered wrong during their lesson observations. What is more, during the evaluation, the progress of the discourse was reconstructed at both content and formal levels – formally by deriving propositions (one of the participants introducing a subject for the discussion), validation (confirmation and continued discussion of a subject by other participants), antithetic differentiations and other forms of reference to previous statements and subject matters. Here, it was important to reconstruct the discourse, and this was done by identifying specific modes of discourse. An investigation was conducted as to how those taking part in the discussion relate to one another. For example, it makes a difference whether the process of the discourse is organized as an argumentative ‘against-each-other’ through thesis–antithesis–synthesis (antithetical organization of the discourse) or whether narrations and descriptions are presented together (parallel organization of the discourse). Also, it is important what issues can be identified throughout the discussion and how a collective framework of orientation develops in an interplay between content and formal discourse organization.

In order to provide a methodologically controlled external understanding, the research group discussed how the interpretations should be understood. In addition, in the comparative analysis, which was carried out as part of the reflecting interpretation, empirical comparison horizons were applied to the material. In the research process, they gradually replaced the location-bound horizons of comparison of the researchers and reconstructed what was specific to each case in comparison with other empirical cases (Asbrand, 2011).

In a final step, cases were compared, which made it possible to determine what was common across them.

Document analysis

To provide an additional picture of the starting-out situation at the case study schools, reports from the first and follow-up inspections were analysed. This provided information about the school size and location, the social and performance-related mix of pupils, as well as the teaching staff size and composition. Furthermore, the results of the first and follow-up inspections of the schools were reported.

This article considers how the results of the school inspection are processed, focusing on the consultants the schools used. External consultancy was one of the central topics the teachers dealt with in the group discussions, with the scope and the kind differing from school to school.

Empirical findings

At all case study schools, the teachers stated that the negative inspection result was a great burden. The period between the inspection feedback and the follow-up inspection was experienced as work-intensive and strenuous. The activities initiated after the inspection feedback focused on developing programmes (further) and concepts that were lacking or insufficient. The activities ended with these being archived, with files and folders being created for this purpose in most cases. As the activities intended to fulfil the requirements of the school inspection in terms of writing everything down and documenting it, instead of focusing on actually improving the pedagogical work, they tended to operate only on the surface of the organization and/or ‘for show’ (Dedering, submitted).

The schools used various services offered by the external advisers which – independently of the school inspection – had been ordered by the regional school authority (Landesschulbehörde). The results of these services and/or how they were used and assessed by the teachers are considered in the following section.

Priority assistance in school and teaching development

The regional school authority offers all schools consulting and support, which includes advisory services, further training and additional qualifications. The services are available via a state-wide online platform and are bundled regionally.

In the context of school inspection, three formats are relevant: advice and support for schools in their systematic development of (a) school quality, (b) general teaching quality and (c) subject-specific teaching quality.

Concerning (a), schools are given support in initiating changes and ensuring that they have a lasting and systemic impact. This service is directed at principals as well as school committees, steering groups and project groups. The objective of this advice is to help schools set up organizational structures that support change processes as planned and in achieving the specified goals. It includes, among other things, the systematic development of school quality, developing guidelines, working on the school programme, clarifying the development goals and development measures, and consolidating school development concepts. The main aim of the advice on school development is to ensure that the support precisely matches the needs of the respective school. The provision of advice follows the principle of ‘helping people to help themselves’. The school decides itself what development steps to take and is also responsible for them. Concerning (b), schools are given support in all matters pertaining to the systematic development of teaching quality and in the overall process of development, implementation and evaluation. General, non-subject-specific aspects concerning teaching quality are the main focus, although subject-specific support can also be included. Team development within the teaching staff is an essential part of the process.

Concerning (c), schools are given support in the systematic development of subject-specific teaching quality. The services offered are mainly directed at symposia (among other things, in German, Math and Science) and include the development and continuation of the school’s own work schedules, providing advice at symposia, working on examples of skills-oriented lessons (learning methods to activate pupils) and differentiation in subject lessons (individualized forms of learning, setting exercises, etc.)

Schools that have been labelled as having serious deficiencies are given priority in making use of these consultancy services, further training courses and qualifications. This is laid down by law.

Making use of priority assistance – diversity and diversification

During their (development) activities, all case study schools apart from one used external consulting. The majority of schools used advice and support in the systematic development of general teaching quality (b) and took part in a 2-year further training programme offered by the regional school authority, in which new teaching methods for promoting self-managed learning by pupils were taught and implemented. Either the entire teaching staff received further training or teams of teachers who then passed on what they had learned to their colleagues in workshops or internal further training for teachers. Several schools used the advisory service and support in systematically developing school quality (a) and received external support for work on the school programme and in organizing and structuring the development process (especially clarifying the development goals and pending development steps), whereby the length of the advice period varied.

In some cases, the schools ultimately used the advisory service and support in the systematic development of subject-specific teaching quality, particularly in developing the school’s own work schedules in order to implement the education standards and core curricula in different school subjects. At half of the schools, several of the consultancy services offered were used successively, predominantly or parallel to one another.

Assessing the priority assistance – privilege or obligation?

The priority help provided to the schools by the state is something that teaching staff perceive with some degree of ambivalence. On one hand, all case study schools were informed that applications for consultancy services were being handled with priority. The negative outcome of the school inspection is interpreted by teaching staff as ‘a good means of exerting pressure to say, OK – here, further training!’ (E1, line 519).⁵ On the other hand, the teaching staff saw themselves as subject to ‘mild pressure’ to accept the consultancy offer by the respective school supervisory employees (C1, line 539). The following is one example from the group discussion at School B:

B1:

And then there was the thing, that we had to do further training. I can’t remember how that all got going.

~B4:⁶: Were allowed to.

B2:

It was imposed on us, by out-

B1:

Yeah, that’s right?

B2:

We had to go in there.

B1:

Ok, phew, two-and-a-half years.

B3:

(clearing throat) Agreeing to goals. That was the key thing.

B2:

And, as I said, we didn’t have to apply for it back then. B6 wanted to register us back then, but the waiting list was very long. And here, funnily enough, we fell through, but our first, ehm, day at work they told us: So, enter the programme and you’ll do that and it’ll be starting already in this first half year. And that’s the way it is.

B1:

And so we entered the programme. (lines 357–372)

The interjection (‘Were allowed to’) by B4 is an attempt to see to what extent a further training course is voluntary or obligatory. The discussion showed that the teachers were more or less ordered to take part in the further training course. B2 describes an apparently privileged situation, that is, without having to make a contribution, the school is being given the chance to take part in a very sought-after further training course. This notion, however, is countered by the training itself, which comes soon after and is practically formulated as an order, that they must take part in the course.

Helpful advice and advisers – the schools’ view

In all case study schools, the teaching staff reported feeling under pressure in terms of time and achieving success between the first and the follow-up inspection. This led to certain ideas about and expectations of the consultancy process. In their opinion, external advice should be directed at the specific needs of the school, so as to reach solutions as fast as possible, that promise maximum success in the follow-up inspection. And this view discourages a closer examination of contents, strategies and instruments of school development – although the consulting actually concentrates on this. This can be verified on the basis of a few selected, trenchant interview passages. As an example, the following passage from a group discussion that took place at School B is presented, where the teaching staff explore the support from a development adviser and which, in their opinion, had gone well:

~B3:

Well, she was . . . here a few times. And then we got things moving, she then, like it’s laid down in legal form and everything was prepared well, and she helped us.

~B1:

Yes, that’s right. Yes, that’s right. She filled out forms with us, showed us the right way.

B1:

Where to get information and together. And that-

~B3:

Therefore, practically a crutch, if you will, therefore-

B2:

Yes.

B3:

Yes.

B2:

And afterwards, she also looked a bit to see whether we, ehm, well (.), that we didn’t get bogged down or anything. Then she also said: Watch out, leave that out, you did that well, don’t bother any more about that, forget this one, you can look at that one again in five years. Look at.

~B3:

She went through the agreed goals with us and, depending on urgency, importance, she worked out a certain order for them. We’ll do that first and then we’ll proceed like this. And, ehm, like I said, we should proceed in a targeted manner with goals in mind. And everything pretty fast – we only had that one year’s time to get through everything. And she helped us and she was here a few times and then she said, here, this and that. Here again with the flipchart. That went well, we still have to work on that and then she used plus and minus cards and a stapler here, a pin there, yes. She wasn’t bad. Actually, she was really good.

~B2:

And she was very realistic. That is, she-

~B3:

And she came from the world of practice. She wasn’t someone who just sat in an office, but knew what she was talking about.

B2:

Exactly. (lines 701–729)

Using different examples, the teaching staff elaborate here on how the development adviser really helped the school. Keeping to formal instructions (‘putting everything in a correct and pleasant form’) is discussed, as is organizing work processes (‘so that we don’t get bogged down’) and getting hold of important information. Based on viewing the goals agreed with the school authority, the adviser proceeded to prioritize these – in a targeted, fast and structured manner – orienting herself completely to the needs of the school. Using the ‘crutch’ as an image, the adviser’s function for the school is summed up metaphorically – she is like a walking aid that supports the injured party, who nevertheless still has to walk alone. In conclusion, reference is made to a characteristic of the adviser that is vital: her practical experience. The adviser – according to B3 – knew what she was talking about because she came from the practical field and did not ‘only sit around in an office’. In the course of the group discussion, the specific procedure adopted by the development adviser unfolds further, as can also be seen in the following passage:

B3:

So, and then she divided up between ehm – she divided us up into groups. It wasn’t always so that 20 people sat there and listened attentively and then went home and asked themselves: What have we achieved? Instead: When I come next time, that and that and that will be done. It’s the group that does that – it’s the group that does that – it’s the school management – that’s the way it goes. Like that. That was exactly what I said at the beginning, what we had to expect from an inspection. The fact that you know what it’s about, so that you can prepare yourself specifically.

~B1:

Yes. Which has to be done. (lines 774–782)

The participants differentiate between practical action, on one hand, and verbal (theoretical) observation, on the other. While the latter is considered passive ‘sitting around’ and ‘listening attentively’ without making any recognizable progress (‘What have we achieved?’), the adviser didn’t just talk – she divided the group up into smaller ones and gave them mandatory work assignments that had to be completed between the days the adviser was there, thus moving fairly quickly to the mode of task fulfilment. She very clearly assumed a leading role and, in this context, acted in a manner that was authoritative and very instructive. The teaching staff, however, by no means felt this to be negative – rather, they saw it as a transparent approach in which all participants are clear about the tasks delegated to them and the goals set. In this way – unlike the school inspection, which is presented here as a negative counterpart – it evidently becomes possible to prepare work which leads to success.

That teachers preferred advisers with a goal-oriented and practice-oriented approach proved consistent at all case study schools that made use of the external consultancy. Clear and constructive guidance of the school staff was particularly well received: ‘Then she went through it point by point with us’ (A3, line 833) or ‘Well, if they take you by the hand like that, then it’ll turn out well in the end’. (H1, lines 579–580). An important role is played here by the immediacy of feedback on one’s own actions. The teaching staff at School C were given support by an external adviser in the systematic development of subject-specific teaching quality who observed the teachers giving their lessons and mention this aspect:

C3:

Yes, and as I said, we were also visited by the adviser while we were teaching. And we got feedback then.

C2:

Yes. The fact that you can assess yourself a little again. We were quite unsettled after the first inspection. (lines 653–658)

Consulting sessions that did not apply such an approach were remembered more negatively. For instance, teachers from School A expressed disappointment that the expert adviser did not present them any solutions that clearly promised success or could not give them ‘any 100% guarantees’ (A3, line 397). The teaching staff from School B reported that one further training course was simply cancelled by the principal because the trainers were regarded as inexperienced beginners who were out of their depth and did not possess the necessary confidence and flexibility to cope with the needs of the school. In this case, what was needed was to meet the expectations of the school inspection within a short period of time.

From what the teachers said, it was also obvious that the colleagues were often unwilling to take an in-depth look at the subject matter and instruments of school development. Accordingly, they were not interested in closing knowledge gaps with respect to school development in general or specific elements of school development in particular. This is evident, for example, in the following excerpt from a group discussion in School A, where the participants talked about one school development adviser:

A5:

She taught us the basic structure in that way.

A1:

She was good. She was also recommended to me.

A5:

You have to have a goal, I write the goal down, when does it have to be achieved () Like that.

A1:

She was good.

A4:

She was good.

A1:

But she was only here for four weeks, then she went again.

A5:

That’s the school programme, well, that should be the school programme and not something prescribed by (our) school and @What it is we do here@, like that.

A1:

Then she left the school.

A4:

Because we thought, the description. But it was supposed to.

A5:

That was great, that was really, °I found that quite°.

A1:

Yes, yes. I think we could have completed it all well with her. She was good. (lines 857–874)

The teaching staff are interested in a working mode which promises solutions that are fast and fulfil the expectations of the school inspection. The teachers are satisfied with the adviser’s support. However, this is not because they have understood the meaning and purpose of the school programme as an instrument for systematic and sustainable school development work, but because they have realized how easy it is to draw up a school programme if one is aware of the basic structure and procedure.

This (rather superficial) handling of external support conforms to an interpretation, whereby (development) activities in schools are regarded less as efforts at improvement based on valid insights, and rather as an attempt to fulfil the school inspection’s expectations and, by doing so, not only get through the follow-up inspection successfully but also compensate for the loss of legitimation through being labelled as a ‘school with serious deficiencies’. In this view, consulting seems to be more like work on the facade than actually changing the activity structure at the school as an organization. In the group discussion, some statements can be found that certainly make such a negative interpretation seem plausible. As such, one teacher at School C who received support from an advisor in the systematic further development of subject-based teaching quality stated:

C1: When they [the school inspectors at the follow-up inspection] see that the expert advisers were there in the individual subjects and something has been done, then it’s okay. (lines 554–555)

It is obvious – as implied here – that it is sufficient to merely document that the school availed itself of the offer of external support and has worked together with an expert adviser. What the content of this cooperation was and what results it led to do not seem to interest the school inspectors. The statements of one teacher at School F pointed out that appearance to the outside is more important than actually getting to grip with the content:

F1: Yes, there are people everywhere who tell you exactly what you have to write in the files so that the files are correct. (lines 641–642)

Consultancy on school development at failing schools – conceptual proposals

The results presented above show that the case study schools use different external school development offers when dealing with the negative inspection results. Here, they report, on one hand, about offers in the area of teaching development: with external guidance, they examine the (alternative) teaching methods in more detail and try them out in practice. They develop work schedules and curricula, among other things, with a view to aligning them to the competences of the pupils. On the other hand, they report offers that constitute organizational development: under external guidance, they draw up a school programme, structure and organize their school development process and document concepts for their teaching work. As they always have the upcoming follow-up inspection in their minds while doing all this, they require a specific type of advisory service that should ‘deliver’.

The follow-up inspection, which is not long after the first one, places principals and teachers under immense pressure to act. That is why short-term solutions seem to be needed in order to fulfil the expectations of the school inspection, at least second time around, and to prevent a further loss of legitimation. That is why principals and teachers are interested in consultancy processes in which they work strictly, in a structured manner and under strong supervision to complete the steps that will help them primarily to achieve the goal of successfully passing the follow-up inspection. The school staff are less interested in taking an in-depth and extensive look at the needs, reasons and possibilities for improvement, which involve gaining know-how and skills in the area of strategies and instruments for teaching development and school development. The offers of external consultancy regard teaching and school development as long-term processes requiring an understanding by the teaching staff of the need for change, as well as ongoing, reflective work on the school’s deficits. However, the specific framework conditions run contrary to a more in-depth understanding of what needs to be changed and an intense analysis of the quality deficiencies mentioned in the inspection feedback. Instead a superficial handling is promoted of the inspection results and the external support measures. Therefore, first, the basic question is to what extent the follow-up inspection is expedient in terms of the hope, which goes hand in hand with the school inspection, that (sustainable) school development be promoted beyond the mere provision of data on school quality.

We now come to the second fundamental question of how external consultancy on school development should be designed in order to provide beneficial support to failing schools. The following considerations are recommendations that could improve current practice. For them to work, it is necessary to considerably reduce the pressure to act that is exerted by the follow-up inspection soon after the initial one – for example, by abolishing the follow-up inspection or by having a larger time gap between the first and the follow-up inspection. This would significantly change the framework conditions for dealing with development needs at such schools. The findings presented above with respect to processing the results of school inspection at failing schools are, thus, what prompted these considerations. They in turn are generally influenced by central empirical findings for external school development at schools (see, for example, Dedering, Tillmann, Goecke, & Rauh, 2013). The findings should be applied to the specific conditions of the external consultancy on school development at failing schools.

Above all, it appears that what is needed is to work on the development potential of the organization so that failing schools can resolve their difficult situation (Huber & Muijs, 2012). A great deal speaks in favour of, first, building up those capacities that make for a ‘learning organization’ and that, among other things, relate to the motivation among school staff to make changes and to set up an infrastructure for innovation (Holtappels et al., 2017). As with all approaches to changing the situation of failing schools, it is of utmost importance to adopt such a context-sensitive perspective. The specific constellation of properties and particularities of the schools in each case must be taken into consideration and integrated into the solution strategies (among others, Altrichter & Moosbrugger, 2011). Nevertheless, some common points can be formulated that are relevant for many failing schools. This we will now do with a view to the consultancy context and the adviser.

The consultancy context

Given the aim of increasing the development capacities of failing schools and to give the actors within the school the ability to find their own strategies for solving their problems over the long term, school development consultancy aims primarily at expanding the principals’ and teachers’ horizons on the problem and instilling an ability to solve problems. The actors within the schools are intended to discover the problems themselves and to solve them through a joint diagnosis with the adviser and taking the school inspection data into account. However, the aim of providing teachers with concrete solutions in certain areas was another aim. To begin with, for example, information is to be provided about school development in general, as well as the associated instruments (such as school programmes), about approaches and methods of leading and managing a school and about tasks and responsibilities of functionaries (such as steering groups or evaluation officers). Methods of self-evaluation should also be introduced and tested. Strategies for resolving conflicts among colleagues or between (individual) teachers and school management can be passed on – before collaboration options are discussed. Put differently, lessons learned regarding content and methodology should be submitted in order to equip teachers with the necessary ‘tools’ to carry out their joint school (development) work. Against this background, it seems advisable to implement the consultancy process – viewed from the point of view of Schein’s (1969) typification of expert/specialist and process consultancy – as a combination of a mostly process-oriented and a specialist approach.

A period of several months or years is realistic for achieving the objectives. With regard to its duration, school development consultancy is thus essentially a long-term process. Factors supporting this time frame include findings from school development consultancy, in general (Dedering et al., 2013), and the scope of consultancy required, which is derived from one’s ‘own feature compilation’ (Huber, 2012, p. 6) as a complex interaction of individual features of failing schools. The focus is on establishing basic structures (of organization, communication and cooperation) as well as breaking deep-rooted attitudes and behavioural patterns (such as expectations of self-efficacy and readiness to change).

The aforementioned features at the pupil level, class level and school level in failing schools cover a wide scope. They fall within the ambience of the school organization, of the learning culture within the school and lessons and of the personnel. In order to change the situation at failing schools, organizational development (e.g. school programme work, teamwork), teaching development (classroom management, method training) and personnel development (supervision, communication training) are all potentially necessary. The content of external school development consultancy is thus aimed at all three areas – and all are of similar importance to failing schools.

In the research on school development consultancy, in general, various consultancy types (as a combination of ‘professional background of the adviser’, ‘content of consultancy’ and ‘forms of work’) have been identified (Dedering et al., 2015). In order to support compensation externally for the many deficits of schools in a challenging position, it is expedient to use a consultancy type that combines further training for all staff with systematic communication with selected members of the staff. Such a consultancy process contains, on one hand, qualification events in which all members of the teaching staff participate and which cover topics from the area of lesson development. With regard to the detected deficits in teacher actions, it would be advisable to investigate interactive forms of learning or stimulating task formats as well as motivational or self-efficacy training sessions. On the other hand, the suggested consulting includes events that may appeal to selected members of teaching staff and that systematically treat aspects that may be relevant to them – school management strategies, for example.

The adviser

As early as the 1970s, Havelock (1976) suggested forming consultancy teams made up of people at varying distances from the system to be advised – the schools. The idea behind this was to minimize the disadvantages caused by advisers near the schools (insiders) and those too far away (outsiders). Conversely, the potential of insiders and outsiders can be optimized by combining them in teams. On one hand, it is important for at least one adviser to be familiar with the school organization and to know the ‘pitfalls’ of internal school processes as well as the needs of the teaching profession (with regard, for example, to the autonomy/parity paradigm) found in every school and which are a particular burden in schools in such a challenging position. On the other hand, the view from outside is also important. An outsider may think less in terms of the dependency structures of the school system and thus may be open to alternative approaches to problems. Adviser teams made up equally of insiders and outsiders should also be able to cover the wide range of skills expected of advisers and which has generally been confirmed empirically for external school development consultancy (Hazle Bussey, Welch, & Mohammed, 2014). This is because substantial content expertise (knowledge, experience and credibility in topic-specific work), process skills (ability to strengthen collaboration and to solve complex communication situations) and interpersonal skills (authentic interest in the actors and the aims being pursued in order to set up a relationship of confidence with the consultancy system) are all urgently needed at failing schools. If one considers that advisers are confronted with particularly difficult social surroundings where ‘both working and personal relationships . . . are strained, unproductive and often hurtful’ (Altrichter & Moosbrugger, 2011, p. 9) and where ‘feelings of pressure and powerlessness dominate’ (Altrichter & Moosbrugger, 2011), it becomes clear that the advisers’ interpersonal skills are very important as a basis for joint work. The use of certain strategies that empirical research on external school development consultancy in general has found to be successful (e.g. Leithwood, Holmes, & Montgomery, 1979; Richert, Stoddard, & Kass, 2001) seems to be a particular challenge – such as creating partnerships among teachers or delegating responsibilities.

With regard to the initially favoured aims of consultancy at failing schools, advisers should adopt both the role of process advisers or supporters who act in a particularly stimulating or constructive manner and the role of specialist advisers or technical experts who act largely as trainers, solution providers and instructors (Tajik, 2008).

Final remarks

As mentioned above, some German federal states whose school inspection procedures originally planned to identify failing schools have now distanced themselves from this procedure. Some other federal states place their hopes in strong dialogue and individual support for failing schools. One can assume that the development work at these schools will become more sustainable as a result. This nevertheless remains to be verified empirically.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Altrichter

Gussner

Maderthaner

(2008). Failing Schools – Auf der Suche nach der ‘schlechten Schule’. Ein Literaturbericht [Failing schools – The search for the ‘bad school’. A literary report]. Journal Für Schulentwicklung, 1(12), 43–55.

Altrichter

Moosbrugger

(2011). Schulen in Schwierigkeiten. Was sagt die Schulforschung über Anzeichen, Ursachen und Lösungen? [Schools in trouble: What does scientific research on schools reveal about signs, reasons and solutions?] Lernende Schule, 56(14), 8–11.

Asbrand

(2011). Dokumentarische Methode [Documentary method]. Online Fallarchiv. Uni Kassel. Schulpädagogik. Retrieved from http://www.fallarchiv.uni-kassel.de/lernumgebung/dokumentarische-methode/

Berman

McLaughlin

(1978). Federal programs supporting educational change, volume VII: Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Bohnsack

(2010). Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung. Einführung in qualitative Methoden [Reconstructive social research. An introduction to qualitative methods] (8th ed.). Opladen, Germany: Verlag Barbara Budrich.

Chimerine

C. B.

Haslam

M. B.

Laguarda

K. G.

(1994). Third-year evaluation of the nine site program improvement initiative. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Dalin

Rolff

H.-G.

Buchen

(1995). Institutioneller Schulentwicklungsprozess [Institutional school development] (2nd ed.). Bönen, Germany: Kettler.

David

J. L.

Kannapel

P. J.

McDiarmid

(2000). The influence of distinguished educators on school improvement: A study of Kentucky’s school intervention program. Lexington: Partnership for Kentucky’s Schools.

Dedering

. (submitted). Is school development merely a façade? On processing the results of school inspections of failing schools in Germany.

10.

Dedering

Goecke

Rauh

(2015). Professional background and working practices of consultants in school development – Initial empirical findings from Germany. Journal of Educational Change, 16(1), 27–52.

11.

Dedering

Katenbrink

Schaffer

Wischer

(2016). ‘Veränderung unter Druck’ – erste Einblicke in die Verarbeitung von Inspektionsdaten an Schulen mit gravierenden Mängeln in Niedersachsen [‘Changing under pressure’ – first insights into processing inspection data in schools with considerable deficiencies in Lower Saxony]. In Arbeitsgruppe Schulinspektion – Böhm-Kasper, O., Brüsemeister, T., Dietrich, F., Gromala, L., Heinrich, M., Lambrecht, M., Preuß, B, Rürup, M., Selders, O., & Wissinger, J. (Eds.), Schulinspektion als Steuerungsimpuls [Working group school inspection: School inspection as a steering impulse] (Educational Governance, Band 25) (pp. 201–226). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

12.

Dedering

Tillmann

K.-J.

Goecke

Rauh

(2013). Wenn Experten in die Schule kommen: Externe Schulentwicklungsberatung – empirisch betrachtet [When experts come to school: School development consultancy – Empirically speaking] (Educational Governance, Band 23). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

13.

Finnigan

K. S.

Bitter

O’Day

(2009). Improving low-performing schools through external assistance: Lessons from Chicago and California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(7), 1–24.

14.

Fullan

(1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

15.

Hargreaves

(2010). Distinction and disgust: The emotional politics of school failure. International Journal for Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 7(1), 27–41.

16.

Havelock

R. G.

(1976). Schulinnovation – ein Leitfaden [School innovation – A manual]. Bern, Switzerland: Verlag Paul Haupt.

17.

Hazle Bussey

Welch

J. C.

Mohammed

M. B

. (2014). Effective consultants: A conceptual framework for helping school systems achieve systemic reform. School Leadership & Management, 34, 156–178.

18.

Holtappels

H. G.

Webs

Kamarianakis

Ackeren

(2017). Schulen in herausfordernden Problemlagen – Typologien, Forschungsstand und Schulentwicklungsstrategien [Schools in challenging and problematic situations – Typologies, state of the art and school development strategies]. In Manitius

Dobbelstein

(Eds.), Schulentwicklungsarbeit in herausfordernden Lagen [School development in challenging situations] (pp. 17–35). New York, NY: Waxmann.

19.

Hopkins

Harris

Jackson

(2010). Understanding the schools’ capacity for development: Growth states and strategies. School Leadership & Management, 17, 401–411.

20.

Huber

S. G.

(Ed.). (2012). Failing Schools – besonders belastete Schulen [Failing schools – Particularly troubled schools]. Schulverwaltung Spezial, 14(2), 4–6.

21.

Huber

Muijs

(2012). Die Dynamik des Scheiterns [The dynamics of failure]. Schulverwaltung, Zeitschrift Für Schulleitung Und Schulaufsicht, 2, 7–9.

22.

Katenbrink

Schaffer

(2016). ‘Schlicht und ergreifend bleibt es eine Prüfung der Schule’. Rekonstruktion der ‘Inspektionsgeschichte’ einer Schule mit gravierenden Mängeln. [‘In plain and simple terms it remains an examination of the school’: Reconstruction of the ‘history of inspection’ of a school with severe deficiencies]. In Hermstein

Berkemeyer

Manitius

(Eds.), Institutioneller Wandel im Bildungswesen – Facetten, Analyse und Kritik [Institutional change in the education system – Facets, analysis and criticism] (pp. 136–153). Weinheim, Germany: Juventa.

23.

Leithwood

Holmes

Montgomery

(1979). Helping school change: Strategies derived from field experience. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

24.

Mahler

(2015). Turnaround und Organisationales Lernen im Bildungssystem: Zur Entwicklung von Schulen mit gravierenden Defiziten im Bereich der Prozessqualitäten [Turnaround and organizational learning in the education system: Development of schools with severe deficiencies in terms of process quality]. Basel, Switzerland: Fachbereich Erziehungswissenschaft an der Philosophisch-Historischen Fakultät, Universität Basel.

25.

McLaughlin

(1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171–178.

26.

Müller

W. R.

Nagel

Zirkler

(2006). Organisationsberatung: Heimliche Bilder und ihre praktischen Konsequenzen [Organizational consultation: Secret pictures and their practical consequences]. Wiesbaden, Germany: GWV Fachverlage GmbH.

27.

Nicolaidou

Ainscow

(2005). Understanding failing schools: Perspective from the inside. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16, 229–248.

28.

Niedersächsisches Landesinstitut für schulische Qualitätsentwicklung (NLQ) (2012). Schulinspektion 2006 – 2012 Abschlussbericht (2006 – 2012) [School inspection (2006 – 2012) – Final report]. Hildesheim: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nibis.de/nibis3/uploads/2nlq-a2/files/Abschlussbericht_Schulinspektion_2006-2012.pdf

29.

Niedersächsische Schulinspektion (Hrsg.). (2010). Indikatoren des Qualitätsprofils [Indicators of the quality profile]. Bad Iburg, Germany: Niedersächsische Schulinspektion.

30.

Quesel

Husfeldt

Landwehr

Steiner

(2013). Einleitung [Introduction]. In Quesel

Husfeldt

Landwehr

Steiner

(Eds.), Failing schools. Herausforderungen für die Schulentwicklung [Failing schools: Challenges for school development] (pp. 9–22). Bern, Switzerland: HEP.

31.

Reichel

Rabenstein

(2001). Kreativ beraten. Methoden, Modelle, Strategien für Beratung, Coaching und Supervision [Creative consultation: Methods, models, strategies for consultation, coaching and counselling]. Münster, Germany: Ökotopia Verlag.

32.

Richert

A. E.

Stoddard

Kass

(2001). The promise of partnership for promoting reform. In Rust

F. O’C.

Freidus

(Eds.), Guiding school change: The role and work of Change Agents (pp. 136–154). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

33.

Rolff

H.-G.

Buhren

C. G.

Lindau-Bank

Müller

(2011). Manual Schulentwicklung: Handlungskonzept zur pädagogischen Schulentwicklungsberatung (SchuB) [Manual for school development: Practical guideline for educational school development consultation] (4th ed.). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.

34.

Schein

E. H.

(1969). Process consultation: Its role in organizational development. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

35.

Schlegel

(2000). Externe Organisationsberatung und Schulentwicklung [External organizational consultation and school development]. Organisationsberatung, Supervision, Clinical Management, 7, 203–211.

36.

Schwank

Sommer

(2013). Krisendiagnose und Veränderungsdruck – Schulentwicklungen zwischen Erst und Nachinspektion in Niedersachsen [Crisis diagnosis and pressure for change – School development between first and follow-up inspection in Lower Saxony]. In Landwehr

Steiner

Quesel

Husfeldt

(Eds.), Failing Schools. Herausforderungen für die Schulentwicklung [Failing schools: Challenges of school development] (pp. 95–122). Bern, Switzerland: HEP.

37.

Sommer

Stöhr

Thomas

(2010). Schulen mit ‘gravierenden Mängeln’: Situation in Niedersachsen und Einsatzmöglichkeiten der Schulentwicklungsberatung [Schools with ‘severe deficiencies’: The situation in Lower Saxony and the possibilities of school development consultation]. In Böttcher

Dicke

J. N.

Hogrebe

(Eds.), Evaluation, Bildung und Gesellschaft. Steuerungsinstrumente zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit [Evaluation, education and society: Controlling instruments between demand and reality] (pp. 209–228). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.

38.

Straumann

(2001). Professionelle Beratung. Bausteine zur Qualitätsentwicklung und Qualitätssicherung [Professional consultation: Elements for quality development and quality assurance] (2nd ed.). Heidelberg, Germany: Ansanger.

39.

Supovitz

J. A.

Turner

(2000). The influence of standards-based reform on classroom practices and culture. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 37, 963–980.

40.

Tajik

M. A.

(2008). External change agents in developed and developing countries. Improving Schools, 11, 251–271.

41.

Wimmer

(2004). Organisation und Beratung. Systemtheoretische Perspektiven für die Praxis [Organization and consultation: System-theoretical perspectives for practice]. Heidelberg, Germany: Carl-Auer-Systeme-Verlag.